Consider as a topic for Guidelines | http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/download/attachments/48562914/050000+Agreement+to+Establish+and+Implement+the+ASEAN+Single+Window.doc |

| | | | | | | |

h5. {color:#000000}Scope:{color}

{color:#000000}This recommendation follows a series after Recommendation 33 which provided a definition for Single Window as follows:{color}

{quote}

{color:#000000}"A facility that allows parties involved in trade and transport to lodge standardized information and documents with a single entry point to fulfill all import, export, and transit-related regulatory requirements.If information is electronic then individual data elements should be submitted once."{color}

{quote}

{color:#000000}Therefore, it follows that this recommendation on interoperability refers to the same context, i.e. regulatory requirements across borders. (There are differences of opinion on this limitation to regulatory activity which may still need to be aired){color}

h5. {color:#000000}Knowledge Gaps:{color}

{color:#000000}Nevertheless, several questions still remain to be answered in relation to this concept definition.{color}{color:#000000}1.1. What are the implications of "interoperability" versus "interconnectivity"?(This also links with Thematic Area 2 described below).{color}

{color:#000000}1.2. From where may the examples of (and lessons from) SW interoperability be drawn? (i.e. only regulatory national Single Windows or so-called "sectoral" Single Windows as well such as Port Community Systems, transit regimes, etc. Where does the line get drawn?).{color}

{color:#000000}1.3. What are the implications for interoperability when multiple Single Windows exist? (such as in the case of Korea).{color}

{color:#000000}1.4. All of the above also relate to the question of what data needs to be exchanged between NSW systems? (Recognising that it may not be \*all\* trade data or documents, but rather certain priority data elements / documents.Different regions / bilateral relationships might have different priorities).{color}

h5. {color:#000000}Information Sources:{color}

{color:#000000}The Recommendation 36 Technical Working Group has already identified a number of resources to date that may serve as useful sources of answers to the above-mentioned questions.{color}{color:#000000}1.1. Interoperability vs. Interconnectivity - Marco Sorgetti, FIATA has already provided some insight on this, as well as Eva Chan with a technical perspective, the ISO Open EDI Conceptual Modelv.2010 also sheds light on this issue.{color}

{color:#000000}1.2. Lessons from SW Interoperability Examples - the ASEAN Single Window has been one of the most prominent examples of RSW to date, but there is some evidence that European "sectoral" SW systems such as e-Maritime may also provide useful lessons as would bilateral examples (e.g. Korea-Singapore).{color}

{color:#000000}1.3. Multiple Single Windows - the case of Koreawould be a good starting point.The plethora of European interoperable systems may also provide some useful insight.{color}

{color:#000000}1.4. Data to be Exchanged - the ASW is currently set up to exchange two documents in particular - the ACDD and preferential tariff Form D.Similarly, other bilateral links (e.g. US-Canada, China-Korea-Japan, or links between systems along trade corridors in Africa) may provide examples of different datas to be exchanged.{color}

{color:#cc0000}{_}If you are interested in participating in this discussion, comments are welcome below.&nbsp;&nbsp;You must be signed in to leave a comment, so please register as an Expert if you have not yet done so._{color}